These notes are part of an essay on an alternate history in which the American War of Independence never happened. In particular, this section discusses historical events that indicate when corresponding events might happen in the alternate timeline. Further alternate history material can be found on my web page.
| The Abolition of Slavery | |
|---|---|
| This is really two issues: slavery itself, and the slave trade. Britain was able to ban the slave trade worldwide because it's fleet was so powerful, and it did so in 1809. So we can assume that 1809 is when opinion in Britain had moved against the horrible business of trading slaves. | Since Britain will still dominate the United Kingdom at this time, we can expect the slave trade to be suppressed around this time. But American opinion, which I assume will still be in favour of slaves at this time, will delay it slightly. I'm neglecting the effects of the American War of Independence on attitudes to slavery, because I don't see any reason to think they were strong. |
| There was, however, nothing Britain could do to ban slavery within other countries. In fact, Britain herself didn't ban slavery until 1833. The United States of America, of course, banned slavery during the American civil war. | Again, let's assume that the British come to an anti-slavery position in 1833. By this time America is rich and populous and has a big influence, so the support needed for a general ban throughout the empire doesn't exist. Looking forward to the 1860s, the Northern two-thirds of the population will be divided on the subject of abolition, the southern one-third will be strongly pro-slavery and Britain will be strongly anti-slavery. That's probably just a bit more support than abolition needs, so I'm guessing slavery will be abolished around about the 1850s or maybe 1860s. |
| Other Colonies | |
| Some other colonies (e.g. Australia) were strongly affected by American independence. For instance, the fact that Britain could no longer send convicts to America was a contributing factor in the decision to found a colony in New South Wales. (Historians argue about how big a factor it was.) | Other colonies will be affected by the change in flow of immigrants. With an open frontier in America there'll be fewer colonists going to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Some may end up dominated by other European powers. |
| Ireland | |
|
Ireland was promised independence just before the first world
war, and received it just after. The promise wasn't enough to prevent an
uprising in 1916. The Irish got their independence because they were
sophisticated, reasonably numerous and almost completely indigestible.
By granting home rule the British were copying the dominion structure of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.. That is, independence through their own parliament, but with a nominal fealty to the crown of Britain. During the Irish potato famine Ireland had very little influence on England or the empire. This made it practical for Britain to be amazingly callous about Irish suffering. | The Irish won't get independence unless they really make a nuisance of themselves. What they will get is enfranchisement and a voice in the future of the British Empire. And that voice in parliament will make it much harder for the empire to ignore Irish misery. That, in turn, will reduce the hate of the Irish for England, as will the fact of representation and the greater religious tolerance forced by the presence of America in the empire. It seems unlikely England can harness Irish support for the empire the way they did the Scots, but I'm guessing Irish discontent will be less active and counterbalanced by a larger (if still modest) pro-British faction. The Ulster plantation will still be a source of friction, though. |
| India | |
| India was promised its independence before the second world war, and received it not long after. It got its independence because its people were reasonably sophisticated, mind-bogglingly numerous and too alien to assimilate. The fact that Britain was dependent on American credit was a factor as well, in the sense that America might well have insisted on it even if the promise hadn't been made. |
India is a problem. It can't be enfranchised the way America and its ilk
can: an India given "one vote one value" would probably dominate the empire.
Needless to say, none of the Anglo-Saxon elite will contemplaty handing over
the reins of power to a horde of economic and perceived social and racial
inferiors.
On the other hand, they can't be kept in subjection for ever either. Never mind the drain on imperial manpower of holding so many people in slavery, eventually public opinion in America and Britain won't stand for it. So they'll have to be cut loose. India will probably be the first state spun off from the empire. But when? Well, a lot will depend on whether there are world war equivalents to tire the empire out. If there aren't then India could be kept subjected for quite a long time. By the time they go Anglo-Saxon culture will have permeated down from the elite to a significant impact on the masses. And Indian cooking will have become a major cuisine in America as well as Britain. |
| Democracy | |
Neither the Britain nor the United States of 1783 was what we would call a
democracy, though either was closer than anywhere else in the world. Only
rich people could vote, and in Britain there was no conception that
representation should be proportional to population. Transformation into
full democracy came in stages, some critical dates are shown below. In
addition, women didn't get to vote until the twentieth century.
| America will initially have limited representation, so history will follow the British timetable. But increasing American economic strength will make that impossible to maintain. Once America has enough seats to make its voice heard reform - including democratising reform - will come swiftly. |
| Demographics | |
| Historically America (without Canada) and Britain had equal populations in (check) the 1830s. | Did American independence encourage or slow the rate of migration? It probably increased the speed of westward movement of the frontier, though how much is unclear. And perhaps other Europeans were happier with the idea of joining an independent republic than they would have been joining a metropolitan component of the British Empire. On the other hand having to fight a war can't make you too popular. I'd guess American population will grow a little slower, on the other hand our accounting system considers Canada to be American, so the date of equalisation will be about the same. |
| Economics | |
| Even after America had the same population it didn't have the same economic strength or industrial capacity. This isn't a reflection on America: the industrial revolution had done amazing things to British productivity. The American economy didn't pass that of the British empire until the end of the century (check), presumably it passed Britain's economy rather sooner. | More industrialisation in a British America, or less? The industrial revolution may spread there a little sooner: consider the way it did in Belgium, a British client from 1815, but not in neighbouring France or Germany. There'll be a strong temptation in Britain to see America as the source of materials for British mills. But I don't see why any American industry should be stifled. The point of divergence assumes that the parliament doesn't use much in the way of taxes or tariffs against America and there isn't any other obvious way. Another possibility would be that historical American growth was partly fuelled by a feeling that they needed self-sufficiency from Britain, but I'm sceptical of that as well. Easily the dominant effect will be no wars on American soil. The point of equality will be passed sooner, I'm guessing in the 1880s. |
| Continue with a possible "No American War of Independence" Timeline | Back to the "No American War of Independence" page |
I welcome feedback at David.Bofinger@dsto.defenceSpamProofing.gov.au.